I am NOT in favour of "Free Speech"...

[paulyb]

...If it means that Paedophilia is openly encouraged at Podcast Alley in a sinister and unchecked fashion.

Discuss.

[WyethDigital]

I had seen somewhere that he could post, but wasn't supposed to be posting new show announcements -- and for a while he wasn't. At least not under his own name. Since it is a violation of PCA rules to have more than one account, that alone should have been enough to boot his kid-lovin' butt. Add to it that he was also posting New Show announcements when he's not supposed to, well...

I personally like PCA. There are only a couple people here whom I genuinely dislike. Those are the Nazi and the Pedophile (and I bet you thought I would say Patrick). That said, there's one way to get him gone: A little bad press. Or the threat of it.

The question is, who would take an article like that without assuming it's from a bunch of disgruntled users (which we aren't)? And of course, the problem remains: I don't want to see PCA going down in flames, but I do want PCA to respect the community consensus about these two jerks. I find it ironic that they have such a strong word censor that you can't even say "****," but they allow the hate-filled ravings of the Nazi and the abusive fantasies of the pedophile to pollute their board. Not very consistent!


Eric

[paulyb]

As far as I know the promoting of "white supremacy" isn't actually illegal (well, sadly not in the UK anyway). I agree with you that it's also misguided filth but, and maybe I'm at fault here, it's a bit easier to ignore...

...And you're right of course - we should be able to call these pricks "f***ing cunts" if we want to seeing as they don't seem to be getting the hint with anything else.

[WyethDigital]

As far as I know the promoting of "white supremacy" isn't actually illegal (well, sadly not in the UK anyway). I agree with you that it's also misguided filth but, and maybe I'm at fault here, it's a bit easier to ignore...

...And you're right of course - we should be able to call these pricks "f***ing cunts" if we want to seeing as they don't seem to be getting the hint with anything else.Here's the similarity, Pauly: None of them actually outright endorses their activities here. The Pedophile says he wants to be able to discuss his issue, and the Nazi says he wants to able to discuss his views.

Problem is, when you get right down to it, they both advocate violence. The Nazi website is full of outright and thinly veiled threats against Jews and others, and the pedophile podcast endorses the sexual abuse of minors.

Discussing these things is not illegal in and of itself, but endorsing and calling for violence and abuse, in some places, is. Even taking away the legal vs illegal argument, PCA doesn't have a legal obligation to supply a platform to them. To me, they're both sides of the same coin. They just differ in their ideology and rhetoric. And I think they should both be banned.

Eric

[Hittman]

This isn’t our place, it belongs to Podshow. It’s up to them.

But a man is judged by the company he keeps, and a place is judged by the people who hang out there. The presence of these two creatures diminishes this place, considerably, and often makes the conversations here unpleasant.

This is not a free speech issue. Free speech issues involve the government, not private places.

When we were first discussing the rules at the PPA, we put in a “we reserve the right to refuse membership to anyone” clause, and we were specifically thinking of these two vile creatures when we did it. We won’t allow their presence to sully the character of the awards. They haven’t showed up, but if they ever do, they won’t get in.

But here, on this board, it’s not our decision.

[WildeGeek]

I'm violating the very principles I'm about to espose by contributing to this thread, but your voting choices offered no middle ground, nor what I feel is the most rational option.

Elie Wiesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel) said:
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference."

IMNSHO, if someone annoys you or disturbs you, in a way that does not directly and measurably harm you, then the most powerful response is not to give them more attention, but rather none.

This is the first time I've posted about the people I prefer not to encourage or interact with on these boards, and if I remain true to my own convictions, it will be the last.

[docsnavely]

i commend Pauly for bringing this back up. there should be some focus on this, and i think that as time goes by, and as podshow grows, they should realize that this situation should be re-evaluated.

hopefully ac doesn't go and ask people to listen to the pedo podcast to decide whether or not it's owner should be allowed to post on the forums.

the more attention this gets, the easier it will be to eliminate this scumbag from the forums. if you ignore him, yes, you are the bigger person, but what does that solve? he'll still be here, just posting uncontested with that nice little signature under each one of his posts.....

[paulyb]

That was really my point. I have tried to ignore these two arseholes in the hope that they would just crawl back under their rocks but it is this very ignorance that is heightening the problem. The people of many cultures over thousands of years have chosen to ignore dangerous situations (Nazi Germany springs to mind!) and the results have rarely been beneficial to their respective societies.

No-one who opposes the presence of these two "Podcasters" on this site is trying to change the World.

They are.

For the worse.

[rookiee]

I have never been barred from any of PCA's forums, which includes posting new show announcements.

I have never been sent a letter of reprimandation by the staff of PCA for trolling and harassing, or hijacking the threads of other forum members.. (Something which another member of this thread cannot claim truthfully.)

I have never registered more than one single username; this one.

I have never attempted to use PCA's forums as a soapbox for pedophile issues other than how they relate to free speech and being equally indexed on PCA, or to respond to direct threats, insults, civil debate brought on by another, or even the occasional polite question posed to me by a fellow member.

I have never advocated any illegal activity or encouraged the breaking of any laws either here or on my podcast.

I have never preached intolerance of beliefs or ideas.

I have never insulted, flamed, or even raised my "voice" at any of you.

I have always treated people with the due respect they deserve as fellow podcasters, regardless of any insults thrown my way.

I have always treated individuals as nicely as they have treated me.

I find it ironic how those who are using hate speech against me originally accused me of hate speech when my podcast was first discovered.

I find it even more ironic that "freedom of speech" is fought for so passionately by all here... in some cases; it is hypocritical.

As I've asked a million times before, why don't you try reading my book instead of burning it?

"But a man is judged by the company he keeps"

I couldn't agree more.

[docsnavely]

how many times does it have to be said? there is no right to free speech on privately owned forums.

why do people stand idly by while a grown adult who professes to have (or want to have) sexual relations with children continuously flaunts around his "right" to free speech? promoting felonious acts (last time I checked) is in fact a crime.

if you were in prison, where you and people like you belong, you would have no rights. it's just a matter of time.

making a long post about what you have or haven't done on these forums is just a waste of time. no one cares. what does matter is that you touch children and you should be hunted down for your actions.

you're not a man, you're a monster, and you make me sick!

[rookiee]

how many times does it have to be said? there is no right to free speech on privately owned forums.

Oh, I would disagree, good sir.

The freedom of the human spirit does not end at the threshold of the web—only does the will to recognize and demand it.

[WyethDigital]

I have never been barred from any of PCA's forums, which includes posting new show announcements.

I have never been sent a letter of reprimandation by the staff of PCA for trolling and harassing, or hijacking the threads of other forum members.. (Something which another member of this thread cannot claim truthfully.)

I have never registered more than one single username; this one.
Save the "poor me" Messianic complex for somewhere else, Rookle. Never registered as someone else? Hmmm.... I can't verify it, but this chap (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=5998) seems very similar in tone and substance to you. Of his seven posts, he's used one to publicize your show (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9923&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=fbipedelogues) for you. That looks mighty fishy.

Regardless of all that, the claim that you have not espoused your agenda on PCA is simply not true. In fact, it's outright bullshit.This post (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11564&highlight=raising+age+consent) is direct evidence of how you took a CNN story deliberately out of context and twisted it to your agenda. You also declared your sexual attraction to underage boys.

Frankly, I don't care if you're gay or not. That's not the issue. Whether or not your "human spirit" ends at the "threshold of the web" isn't the issue, either. Your advocacy of sexual abuse is the issue. The fact is, your unrestricted free speech does end on the thresholds of some places -- and not just for you, but for all of us. I can go on the street corner and call Paulyb out as a drunken Englishman if I want to, but if I'm lying, he could sue me for slander. If I went into his home and called him the same thing, he could throw me out. If I went to his forum and said it, he could ban me. He would be within his rights defending himself against my "free speech."

It is up to the management of this place to decide if your speech or actions violates their code of conduct. I think they do, and so do others. It is our job to lobby them to enforce their own rules. Ultimately, though, what they choose to do (or not to do) is up to them, and we will have to live with the consequences of their decision... Just as they will have to live with it.

Eric

[rookiee]

Your conclusions are erroneous. I'll try to remain as brief as possible.

Never registered as someone else? Hmmm.... I can't verify it, but this chap (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=5998) seems very similar in tone and substance to you. Of his seven posts, he's used one to publicize your show (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9923&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=fbipedelogues) for you. That looks mighty fishy.

Bad guess. Actually, he was my friend Jeffrey Gold from Sure Quality Radio whom registered under his own decision to help me fight some of the accusations faced before me at the forums. I never instructed him to register or post. However, whenever he did, he would usually inform me. I personally attempted to convince him that pretending to be a "concerned" user was rather deceitful and transparent, but to each their own. I can't control others.

Regardless of all that, the claim that you have not espoused your agenda on PCA is simply not true. In fact, it's outright bullshit.This post (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11564&highlight=raising+age+consent) is direct evidence of how you took a CNN story deliberately out of context and twisted it to your agenda. You also declared your sexual attraction to underage boys.

That's a child sexuality issue--not a pedophile issue. :roll:

Seriously though, I was reporting a story about what I felt was oppressive legislation and gave my opinions about it. The effects of my comments could be construed as pushing my own personal agenda; but in itself, it is not. Besides, I do believe when I made that post, I was responding to another related thread which was being discussed at the time.... but to be fair, I concede, it was borderline. Sorry. :P

Frankly, I don't care if you're gay or not. That's not the issue. Whether or not your "human spirit" ends at the "threshold of the web" isn't the issue, either. Your advocacy of sexual abuse is the issue.

This is where you become erroneous, Wyeth. I have never advocated abuse. Abuse means that someone is not consenting. I am not in favor of sex involving a non-consenting partner. If a minor is not educated enough to understand what he or she is doing, I would not be in favor of them engaging in sexual activity. I advocate that people open their minds to the possibility that in some cases--where the minor is smart and wise enough, and the adult treats the minor with equality and respect--it is not always wrong.

Subsequently, I am also advocating for a more tolerant ethos and understanding of sexuality in general. Western civ--specifically, the US--has a very backward, confusing, and harmful way of viewing sex. It was brought on by the Puritans when they landed here. It is a strictly Judeo-Christian approach which discourages sex for means of pleasure. Granted, over the last century, this country has made leaps and bounds toward a more humanist approach to sexuality; but, conflicting with this progress is the traditional, conservative, puritanical force which demands that sex remain only as a means of procreation between "one man and one woman". This restrictive ethos denies equal rights to any individual seeking out sex as a means of personal enjoyment no matter of their sexual orientation since such activity does not lead to procreation.

This ethos has also created a large amount of turmoil and confusion amongst the citizens of this country. I argue that today's paranoid and hysteric fears of pedophilia is a direct result of this confusion. We're living in a time where minors' sexual freedom and rights are allowed flourish more than ever before. Their rights and autonomy as human beings is being recognized by scholars and teachers, child advocates, and even the parish. Yet, the moment that the sexual relationship crosses that thin social class of "adult" versus "minor", there is suddenly a huge backlash, which destroys any notion of common sense. The tangible culprit of this is the "age of consent". The age of consent makes absolutely no room at all for any exception in the law, creating a means to carry out strict punishment against "offenders". It creates a false sense of security for protecting minors against would-be predators. It propogates intolerance and gives the mainstream media excuse to profit off of peoples' misery. It enables hateful bigots a tool of argumentation to claim that anyone who doesn't think "their" way should be ostracized. (This is akin to anti-gays who would argue in the past: "Homosexuality is wrong because it's illegal!") It enables fear-mongers to spread lies and hurt innocent people.

I could keep going on and on, but I'll stop to get back to my point.

Most people here would agree on the basic premise of what I have just outlined to one degree or another. Whether or not you personally think I'm sick for finding minors attractive does not detract from the facts and logic I have presented. The fact remains that this country is farked up in its thinking and the end result is that people are being hurt. I'm trying to help. You're saying I shouldn't be allowed to speak my opinions. If I was out to hurt someone, I would agree with you. But, I'm not. Stop hating me and listen, for crying out loud.

[Twilight]

I know this won't solve the problem but it is a band-aid.

On other forums I've been on there have been options to "ignore" users. That way you don't see the offending person's comments in posts and don't see any threads they start. Perhaps we can get PCA to add this feature?

[WyethDigital]

Never registered as someone else? Hmmm.... I can't verify it, but this chap (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=5998) seems very similar in tone and substance to you. Of his seven posts, he's used one to publicize your show (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9923&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=fbipedelogues) for you. That looks mighty fishy.

Bad guess. Actually, he was my friend Jeffrey Gold from Sure Quality Radio whom registered under his own decision to help me fight some of the accusations faced before me at the forums. I never instructed him to register or post. However, whenever he did, he would usually inform me. I personally attempted to convince him that pretending to be a "concerned" user was rather deceitful and transparent, but to each their own. I can't control others.
But you didn't acknowledge your friend's dishonesty, either.

Regardless of all that, the claim that you have not espoused your agenda on PCA is simply not true. In fact, it's outright bullshit.This post (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11564&highlight=raising+age+consent) is direct evidence of how you took a CNN story deliberately out of context and twisted it to your agenda. You also declared your sexual attraction to underage boys.

That's a child sexuality issue--not a pedophile issue. :roll:
No. It's not a "child sexuality issue." It's your sexuality issue. You're merely placing the responsibility on the child.

Seriously though, I was reporting a story about what I felt was oppressive legislation and gave my opinions about it. The effects of my comments could be construed as pushing my own personal agenda; but in itself, it is not. Besides, I do believe when I made that post, I was responding to another related thread which was being discussed at the time.... but to be fair, I concede, it was borderline. Sorry. :P
There's nothing "borderline" about it. You were pushing the story and misinterpreting it for your own ends. That is an obvious fact. The passages of the article you quote contradicts your own analysis of it. It's kind of like the Bush White House cooking the intelligence before the Iraq war. They couldn't find any real WMDs so they made some up. You did the same thing with that story -- just because you try to disavow yourself of the issue by saying you were merely reporting it doesn't change anything. By deliberately mis-reporting it in such a way, you became the advocate for the cause.

If you're going to play the misunderstood victim, you might try to be a little less disingenuous about it.

Frankly, I don't care if you're gay or not. That's not the issue. Whether or not your "human spirit" ends at the "threshold of the web" isn't the issue, either. Your advocacy of sexual abuse is the issue.

This is where you become erroneous, Wyeth. I have never advocated abuse. Abuse means that someone is not consenting. I am not in favor of sex involving a non-consenting partner. If a minor is not educated enough to understand what he or she is doing, I would not be in favor of them engaging in sexual activity. I advocate that people open their minds to the possibility that in some cases--where the minor is smart and wise enough, and the adult treats the minor with equality and respect--it is not always wrong.
No, this is where you are erroneous. An adult will always have a position of authority over a minor, no matter what your utopian fantasies tell you. I have not met one teen (even when I was one) who was "ready" or mature enough sexually at the ages that we're talking about to make rational judgement calls. Chalk it up to lack of life experience, raging hormones or whatever... Fact is, a child is not ready for the consequences of a sexual relationship.

It is a strictly Judeo-Christian approach which discourages sex for means of pleasure. Granted, over the last century, this country has made leaps and bounds toward a more humanist approach to sexuality; but, conflicting with this progress is the traditional, conservative, puritanical force which demands that sex remain only as a means of procreation between "one man and one woman".
For the record, the puritans married young, and didn't handle it too well. Lots of confused sexual issues among them. Led to lots of problems.

I know you'll say you're not, but you're deliberately mixing up two issues here. You're trying to tie them together into a nice little bow, but it doesn't fly. Personally, I don't give a rat's *** about Judeo-Christian sexual hang-ups. I don't care that men want to have sex with men, or that women want to have sex with women, and I don't care whether or not you procreate.

If you're gay, then you're gay. I personally don't believe there's a lot of choice there. There may not even be a lot of choice for you in regard to your own preference for young boys. Then again, I may not have a lot of choice about being overweight. Some of these things affect only us. Some of them affect other people. In some cases, like gay sex between two consenting adults, those that are affected had the opportunity to choose to be affected. In your case, even if you found a kid that sounded willing, he doesn't have the experience, the maturity or the equality of personal power to make the choice. That's the time for you to demonstrate your own maturity and responsibility, as an adult must sometimes do. It seems to be a responsibility that you are far too willing to shirk. And just in case you haven't figured out what I (and a majority of people on this forum) think is your responsibility, it is to keep your hands off the kids, to stop making excuses for it. And to find another outlet.

Eric

[rookiee]

But you didn't acknowledge your friend's dishonesty, either.

I most certainly did. He stopped posting, didn't he?

For the record, the puritans married young, and didn't handle it too well. Lots of confused sexual issues among them. Led to lots of problems.

Don't confuse the point... The age of consent was low all across the board (with an average age of 10-12 years old). That doesn't automatically make it good, though. Girls were often married off through arranged marriages, and age of consent was merely a standard which protected girls from being married off too early. Unmarried sex was abomination. Once married off, she had no choice in the matter. This is far from a healthy sexual environment. It's bassackwards. It's total control over people's will. It's bad.

... But this is where our basis for our "modern" Age of Consent laws are based from. They're just higher now.

The Judeo-Christian belief system prevents people from being happy unless they believe in and conform to the procreation-only standard. It's an archaic philosophy from a time where women had no rights and homosexuality was considered an abomination. I was not using it as an argument for a low age of consent.

Here's another thing that I think is being misunderstood about me...

I am not saying that all of a sudden, age of consent should be abolished and children should suddenly have this right to say yes. It would be ludicrous for me to do so. This country (and the world for that matter) are nowhere near the level of peace and understanding of our fellow human being to even consider lifting these protections that children so vitally need to be safe. We're too violent of a species... too violent of a society. I'm just hoping that someday through understanding and tolerance and love, we can come to agree that physical affections are not all entirely bad... kids have sexualities. They have needs to one degree or another. If we simply stopped teaching them hate and violence and male-controlled macho-chauvenism, perhaps the next generation might simply be a little happier, y'know?

Yeah, I might be a hippie, utopian, idealist thinker... but even if I am, that still doesn't even come close to claims that I'm attempting and advocating the abuse of children. It's completely, utterly against what I am as a person. And I'm definately not sinister. If anything, I'm more of a sissy.

Oh, and as for other outlets... dude, remember, I like men and women, too. I'm not all obsessed over the pedo thing. I just worry about people being hurt by intolerance. I'm trying to help. Instead I'm called a monster.

[docsnavely]

I am not saying that all of a sudden, age of consent should be abolished and children should suddenly have this right to say yes. It would be ludicrous for me to do so. This country (and the world for that matter) are nowhere near the level of peace and understanding of our fellow human being to even consider lifting these protections that children so vitally need to be safe. We're too violent of a species... too violent of a society. I'm just hoping that someday through understanding and tolerance and love, we can come to agree that physical affections are not all entirely bad... kids have sexualities. They have needs to one degree or another. If we simply stopped teaching them hate and violence and male-controlled macho-chauvenism, perhaps the next generation might simply be a little happier, y'know?

So if kids have "sexualitites", how about let them deal with it between themselves (as highschool kids doing what highschool kids do) instead of you swooping in when you notice a vulnerable pre-teen who is confused and unsure. You go spouting off your views upon sexuality to a pre-teen and you AS AN ADULT have an automatic advantage over them. If you tell them that orally pleasuring a grown man is ok if they want to, they'll believe. Why? Because they're vulnerable, and are ignorant to the fact that some adults are only out there to serve their own twisted agendas.

You can talk all the fluf you want in reply, but when you get right on down to it, this is the key right here. You want to persuade vulnerable kids to believe as you do. When you do, that kid is scarred for life.

Whatever happened to you as a kid to make you act like this now, I'm sorry. No human should ever have to go through sexual abuse. Just because you went through it (which I'm almost sure of even if you're not), doesn't mean you have to corrupt others who have a clean slate.

Instead I'm called a monster.

I call it as I see it. You are a monster because you exploit the innocence of children. You are sick and should be institutionalized.





Why has podcastalley not yet deleted this scum from it's forums? Is there a benefit to having him here? This argument comes up every 3 or so months. Is it more for publicity. Chris, you're a good guy, you know this sicko is wrong in everyway imagineable. I know you're watching this thread. Why do you not act on this nastiness, but yet you install a word filter for *** **** and ****? I'm far less offended by cuss words than I am a predator pedophile.

[Slone]

docsnavely - well said.

rookiee You need to get help. Your mind in my opinion is not functioning rationally at all and trying to justify having sexual relations with a minor at any level is wrong. I don't even know where to start, and I don't think anyone can reach the world you live on. I'd be at ease knowing the FBI or someone had you on their watch list, or at least knowing your profile was distributed within your community.

[rookiee]

So if kids have "sexualitites", how about let them deal with it between themselves (as highschool kids doing what highschool kids do) instead of you swooping in when you notice a vulnerable pre-teen who is confused and unsure.

First half of the sentence you're talking about highschoolers, and the second half you're talking about pre-teens. Why the blur in subjects?

Highschoolers? Dude, try middle school. Try ELEMENTARY school in some cases.... they're going at it a lot younger than most people are comfortable talking about.

But I digress.

If highschoolers want to have sex with highschoolers and want to be left alone, dude, I'm all for it. It's their bodies and their freedoms. No one's swooping down on anyone. But if these people are not able to consent in one situation, how can they consent in another situation?

"Because they're with people their age."

Oh, and peers don't take advantage of each other? They don't lie? manipulate? cheat? or rape each other? The same danger of being taken advantage of that everyone's so afraid of can and does already happen.

When that happens, who's going to step in? An adult. Kids don't always "deal with it themselves" nor should they.

"Yeah, but that doesn't mean they should be able to be sexually active with them."

Why not? If someone's older and wiser, what's the harm?

"Because they have control over the kid."

I don't think they should. I think they should be equal.

"But they aren't. Kids are less experienced and adults can take that to their advantage."

CAN, keyword. Doesn't mean they're GOING to. Intent. Suppose they're friends? Suppose the kid loves the adult and vice versa? What if the kid is attracted to the adult and WANTS to experiment? Why not let them be?

"Because I'm a parent and I wouldn't want my kid being with some old creep."

Neither would I. We're not talking about creeps or strangers or perverts.

"It doesn't matter how 'nice' they are. They're still adults and it's wrong."

Why?

"Because it's icky. They're sick for wanting kids."

So are kids sick for wanting adults? Happens all the time. There's different facets of sexuality, not just kids with kids. Think about it. How many boys lust after grown women?

"They can lust all they want. They don't know any better."

Don't compare inexperience with ignorance. Worried about them not knowing? So teach them better. Make them aware of the dangers and consequences. They're going to end up trying it behind your back anyways either with someone older OR someone their age when THEY feel they're ready. Make them responsible and knowledgable by the time they've HIT the "tween" years so by the time their body is ready, their mind will be ready. Don't hide them from sex. Empower them. Teach them to be smart and use good judgement. Don't answer with bullsht "Victorian" answers. Teach them the right words to use for genitals rather than "weenee" and "peepee". Don't teach them that sex is bad or dirty or icky.

What kind of relationship do people have with their kids? If it's a good one, it's going to be where when their child asks them a question about sex, they're going to answer it plainly and matter of factly, not withholding information but not shoving it down their throats, either. Be simple with them but be factual. They can handle it. They're not dumb. They're going to get their outlook on life from everything you say. When they end up watching violence and stuff on TV and see men controlling women, they're going to take it all in and learn bad lessons. When they see other people, kids, teachers, etc., all talking evasively about sex, they're going to be confused and they're going to turn to you for the answers. What are you going to do with that? Add to their confusion? No. Hopefully not. Break the mold. Break the bad socialization. What if you walk in on 10 year old timmy who knows how to use a computer better than you do and he's found something on WinMX his pants are down around his ankles? They're doing it. Are you going to tell them it's shameful and shouldn't be done? It's just like finding a Playboy under his bed.

"Timmy, it's time for the talk."

If someone's raising their kid to be realistic and sane and non-shameful of their sexuality, the talk would have been happening all along rather than it being sprung on them after 10 years of relative silence.

"Dad, I don't wanna talk about it."

Think about that statement... What scenario does it paint? To me, it means there wasn't an open line of communication like there should have been. The statement, or the uneasy "talk" scenario would not even happen if a parent taught their child to be open with themselves. The "talk" should have gradually and steadily happened throughout their years. By the time your son or daughter is already knowledgable about sex and is wanking off to porn, what good is it to START talking to them about it? If we were living in a culture that wasn't ashamed of its sexuality, this would be a no-brainer. We wouldn't be in this mess. The birds and the bees should have been flying along with them the entire time.

"This is ludicrous. You're sick."

Really. So that means that when your son/daughter is 12 years old, in middle school and is active on the net, MySpace, YouTube, and chatting daily with people they've never met, you're telling me that you don't want them to have already been empowered? Already had some knowledge about life so they can be safer?

"I don't allow them on the net by themselves."

Then I argue that you're acting out of fear and damaging their future as citizens in an information-age culture. The world has changed so rapidly over these last 30 years... our ways of thinking have not. THAT'S the problem.

When that guy starts hitting on your 12 year old in a chatroom and they don't know how do handle the situation.. too late. You've failed.

Bad scenario:

Oldfatguy: Hey there, asl?
Timmy: hi uh whats asl?

Good scenario:

Oldfatguy: Hey there, asl?
Timmy: f*** off, you're not my type.

Which "Timmy" is empowered?

"That second 'Timmy' doesn't exist."

Sure he does. He's been on my show a few times. Try taking a listen.

"You shouldn't be allowed to talk to children. You should be put in jail and castrated."

Please. Be real. If I EVER tried hitting on him, not only would he stop talking to me but he'd be very likely to have the cops sent to my house. Why? Because his mom didn't treat him like a dumb dipshit "child" and fill him with unrealistic ideas. She gave him knowledge, books, and talked to him as an equal--as a human being. He just turned 13, is very liberated, knows he's gay, likes older men, has this weird thing for Pete Burns, and loves the Pet Shop Boys. He runs a little online radio station server where he pumps out gay music all the time. :roll: He's like a gay ElNacho. Could you imagine me trying to hit on ElNacho? He'd have my balls in a knot. Why? Because HE'S empowered. Knowledge is power. That's what I'm all about.

"Some kids just aren't that able to develop so quickly."

This is true. Some kids are dumber than others. Everyone develops at different rates. As George Carlin said: "A few winners, a whooollle bunch of losers." We need to recognize this and handle things on a case-by-case basis, not a flat-out "18 year old AOC". 18?!? Are you kidding me?? What kind of world are we living in??

Whatever happened to you as a kid to make you act like this now, I'm sorry. No human should ever have to go through sexual abuse. Just because you went through it (which I'm almost sure of even if you're not), doesn't mean you have to corrupt others who have a clean slate.

I've never heard such ignorance. The first time I had sex of any type was at 19 with a friend who was about 10 years older than me. And I jumped him. I was /not/ abused. :P

Were you abused?

I have a feeling you were. And I'm not trying to insult you or anything. I'm serious. People who hate people others generally are people who suffer from self-hatred, unresolved shame, and anger of something that happened to them in their past, and/or secretly share the same feelings within themselves as the person they hate. The same thing happens with homophobes.

If you /were/ abused, I do not mean to trivialize it in any way by analyzing it. I'm just really wondering...

[paulyb]

I can't believe so few people have voted in this poll. I guess intransigence is once again going to allow a sexual pervert to run free.

For the time being anyway.

PS. That animal has quoted repeatedly and at great length the same deceits and untruths that clearly persist in its deluded and addled brain. In the words of George Canning, when faced by an eight-page challenge to a duel by his rival, Lord Castlereagh...

..."I would rather fight him than read it".